News is just in that John Kasich is dropping out, which removes any remaining drama about whether or not The Donald will be the GOP’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court and lead the Free World.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
84 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Ah, yes. Let’s start the day with fearmongering.
Or with missed sarcasm.
This isn’t sarcasm; it’s the forerunner to why we must for for Clinton. You don’t think this will be one of arguments used to guilt trip people into voting for Clinton no matter how bad she is?
That’s always been the main argument, independent of who the repubs. run.
And how convenient for La Clinton.
It must be nice to have the luxury of pretending Clinton is that bad. You must not have to worry about a lot of things. Or perhaps you do, and it’s a defense mechanism, because you don’t want to believe we’re on the precipice that we are on. That’s common on the fringes of politics; an extreme position can be very, very comforting. A nice security blanket in a complex world.
Bernie will vote for Hillary if she wins. 100% guaranteed. He’ll speak on her behalf, too. Guaranteed. Why? Because he has a stronger connection to the real world than some of his more ardent supporters. He worries about people that aren’t exactly like him, and what will happen to them if Trump is in charge. He won’t burn the country down to save it.
Bernie’s gaps on major issues seriously concern me, but I’ll vote for him if he gets the nom. Period.
That bad for whom?
That complex world you speak of contains a lot of Muslim women and children whose lives are going to end, either in an explosive instant or in protracted mutilated agony, when Clinton, a demonstrated super-hawk, next decides to exercise her idea of “smart power at its best”.
I will accept no American Exceptionalist excuses for why their fates matter less than ours. And I will not allow Clinton to claim my vote as a symbolic imprimatur for her butchery.
At this point, the person I am disagreeing with typically insults me for my impracticality or naivete while boasting of their superior grasp on the realities of American power. They are welcome to it.
So the inference here is that Trump would be less inclined to use ultra-violence to “solve” our “problems” with Muslims.
Uh…have you heard Trump talk about Muslims?
Have you gotten a sense of Donald’s thorough lack of impulse control?
Did you get a look at this little bit from the campaign trail last week?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bobby-knight-trump-drop-bomb
“Hours after Donald Trump called nuclear weapons “the single greatest threat that the world has,” basketball coaching legend Bobby Knight told a crowd Thursday in Indiana that the GOP presidential frontrunner would “have the guts to drop the bomb” like former President Harry Truman.
Standing side by side with Trump, Knight praised Truman as “one of the three great Presidents.” The former Indiana University basketball coach specifically praised Truman for dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan, which he said Trump would be willing to do as well, according to Politico.
“Harry Truman, with what he did in dropping and having the guts to drop the bomb in 1944 saved, saved millions of American lives,” Knight said, as quoted by Politico. “And that’s what Harry Truman did. And he became one of the three great presidents of the United States. And here’s a man who would do the same thing, because he’s going to become one of the four great presidents of the United States.”
Knight’s comments came after Trump said in an interview earlier Thursday that he would not rule out using nuclear arms against the Islamic State terror group.
“I will be the last” to resort to nuclear weapons, Trump said on NBC’s “Today Show.” “But I will never, ever rule it out.”
And look at the coda:
“Trump seemed pleased with Knight’s praise, calling him “a national treasure.””
I don’t like Clinton’s foreign policy instincts at all, but I’m ready to fight to organize her to drop her worst policy prescriptions in this area, as we did when we got her to oppose the TPP and otherwise improve her platform from the one she ran on in 2008.
Meanwhile, Trump would be positively genocidal in his use of our military. He’s practically screamed that at us, over and over. His supporters LOVE it. You and I would have no leverage at all to influence his foreign and military policies, unlike Clinton.
And, oh yeah, Trump wants a massive ramping up of Defense spending.
Please consider these things while sitting with your concerns about Muslims and others around the world.
A few key points:
Nothing so far suggests the GOP in congress will work with Drumpf. Some of the things he talks about would need congress’ approval.
For any extreme executive branch actions, like missile launches, there is ample evidence the military would tell him to get stuffed.
The concern with Clinton is she knows how to work the system to get her foreign policy agenda approved, even by the GOP. Drumpf shows no ability to be subtle or work the system. This is why she is more dangerous with regards to foreign policy.
In our governmental system, and the norms which have been established by Presidents and their Congresses in the last half century, the President has great space to take action without Congressional approval. Many have taken major military action in the face of Congressional disapproval.
The Korean War was the last one executed under a Declaration of War from Congress. All of the military actions directed by President Obama and his Administration have been moved without a Declaration.
Obama sought approval for his Syria policy from Congress, failed to get it, and has been allowed to continue with his Syrian military interventions without a vote from Congress.
A President Trump would not come to Congress to gain approval before dropping a nuclear or hydrogen bomb. His ego, and his stated need to run an “unpredictable” military policy, would preclude that.
The American military will not refuse an order from a President or his Administrative representatives. Their actions in recent decades provide powerful proof of that. Nor would I want them to refuse an order. It is important for us to maintain our civilian-led military.
Yes, but the evidence you provide doesn’t really negate my point. In the first few examples, I see Drumpf as no worse than Clinton in that they would do exactly the same things without approval; the only difference might be the targets involved.
Really? The military has been ordered to use nuclear weapons before without proper process and carried out such orders? I must have missed that news story. If you really think the military is going to accept that type of order from a man like Drumpf, you really have very little knowledge of the military. I’m not saying they are paragons of virtue, but for the most part they are also not going to rush into mass annihilation on the orders of Drumpf.
And I would want them to refuse such an order. The fact that you would want them to essentially abandon their humanity just so an order from the civilian leadership would be followed, and the entire Earth can be a radioactive tomb, it quite frightening. It is more important for men to recognize an insane order and refuse to follow it, than blinding following the chain of command no matter the consequences. Just look to history for when they didn’t.
Do you really consider yourself a liberal / progressive?
I fail to understand what you believe “proper process” is for the use of military power, including nuclear weapons. If President Trump and his Administration were to execute any direct order, the military would be obligated to comply.
I believe you’re leaning on the fact that individual members of the military are empowered to reject orders to commit war crimes. But you and I know that our military and intelligence agencies have committed many war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions, at the behest of commands from many Presidents and Administrations. The W. Bush Administration was particularly notorious for torture and other moral and legal violations. Many feel that the uses of drones to commit extrajudicial murders in the Middle East under the Bush and Obama Administrations have violated international agreements. Yet, members of the military have not stopped these immoral uses of force.
It you’re talking about missing news stories, I’ve missed the news stories which document the U.S. military refusing a direct order from a President and/or Administration. Feel free to educate me of an incident which meets this description.
It would be extraordinarily dangerous for our democracy if military commanders or rank-and-file military were permitted to disobey orders from their civilian commanders. Allowing unelected people to unilaterally decide when nuclear weapons should or should not be used would be an insane way to proceed. Such lack of discipline could be used to either refuse an order to drop a nuclear bomb or execute the dropping of a nuclear bomb without Presidential orders. We just shouldn’t proceed in that way.
Your justification for claiming Trump would be an acceptable alternative to Clinton leans on the military disobeying a potential “insane order” from Donald. It seems to me your example damns your case for Trump here.
Not for nothing, but if things get to the point that the military is telling the president to “get stuffed” we’re going to be in pretty scary shape.
3 problems with Bobby Knight’s cranial-rectal inversion of the facts.
This is however, a very good example of how disconnected from facts/reality T-Rumps supporters are.
Bernie’s gaps on major issues seriously concern me, …
Those alleged gaps less well defined than when HRC folks pushed the “Obama has series gaps …” in ’08. Voters decided that Obama’s quite real gaps couldn’t possibly be worse than HRC’s demonstrated mega-lapses.
Perhaps if more personally comfortable Dems — yes, neoliberal economics and the MIC have made many Dems personally quite comfortable indeed — had more empathy, community spirit, and they could easily do with a bit or a large amount less that would improve no just the lives of the “have nots,” but also their own security and well-being, collectively we would be in a better position to reject that latest crap Dem candidate on offer. Instead, regardless of personal principles, ethics, etc., they lapse into accepting and even extolling the choice of the elites faster than GOP rubes do on their side.
Luxury, hell. We are on a precipice either way; it just may be far worse with Drumpf. Don’t kid yourself into thinking it won’t be a crappy nation to live in if Clinton is elected.
100%? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, I’m free to make my own choices. I can support Sanders but also disagree with his support of her.
Well considering the damage he would cause to the country would be far less, why wouldn’t you vote for him if he get the nomination?
I’m glad that Hillary voters would vote for Bernie if he was nominated. Why shouldn’t they?
Turning it around may look all nice and symmetrical, but the two candidates are not symmetrical at all, neither in fact nor in public perception.
I can’t help it if you insist on keeping your blinkers on. The information is out there, and I’m not talking Vince Foster and Whitewater here, I’m talking about real stuff. Process that first, then we’ll talk about Trump.
What is to be done is another problem. A big problem for some of us.
Fearmongering is only OK when it’s comparing Sanders to Clinton.
#Trump/Arpaio ’16: Because electing Hillary Clinton is just too dangerous.
Good lord — did you fall off a turnip truck and miss all the Dem Presidential campaigns since 1960?
There are none so blind as those who will not see…
Trump/Arpaio 2016!
Good lord — did you fall off a turnip truck and miss the comment I responded to?
Considering the response you gave to my comment…maybe you did fall off a turnip truck. Concussions can really mess with rational thinking.
You compared the argument of voting for Clinton over Trump as “fearmongering”.
I’m simply pointing out that the same “vote Sanders or stay home because Clinton is just as bad” are using the same exact fearmongering.
But go ahead. Pretend you’re super principled and ethical.
It must be a nice game to play, even if it’s only in your own head.
Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because voting for HRC is just too dangerous.
Both of them scare the shit out of me. OK?
When Kasich entered the race, I went back and viewed an informal TV debate between Kasich and Deval Patrick from a couple of years ago. From that I concluded that Kasich wouldn’t be easily written off. Then came the first two debates. On a large stage, the guy has the charisma of a cold bowl of mush. An energy level like Jeb’s. He floated at the edge of the primary as a less insane and less extreme standard issue very conservative candidate. As others that roughly fell into that same category began dropping out, Kasich never gained much by their departure.
The field would have had to clear far sooner and more quickly for Kasich to possibility get into position as the 2016 McCain and Romney last man standing. Too bad for him that the GOP base had no intention of having another milquetoast shoved down their throats this time around.
Kasich is no milquetoast. He’s an extreme right-winger, as Planned Parenthood and many others attest, as his full record in Congress and as Governor has shown.
John lays the claim that he is more of a “common sense uniter” than other Republicans, but he has a long list of highly belligerent public statements and actions which prove that his claim is a hoax.
But, sure, Kasich wasn’t rankly insulting everyone on the debate stage during the current campaign, so I’d accept that many in the Republican base consider him insufficiently “strong”.
Kasich has the trick of sounding reasonable to a general audience, which makes him more dangerous.
That’s his reputation and while he managed to stay out of the camp of his “howling at the moon” competitors, he came off as cranky, low energy, for sale to the highest bidder, and dull as dishwater in the debates. Maybe his veneer has slipped with age.
It’s a demeanor and accent thing. People liked Kasich because he seemed mild-mannered and had that neutral Midwestern accent. Put him next to Trump and Cruz, and he might as well be Lincoln at a superficial level.
People fall for that “Aw, shucks” bullshit. Look at that clownfraud John Edwards. Ran as Bill Clinton in 2004 and Ralph Nader in 2008. And a segment of Dems that fetishize populism and hear mid-’80s John Mellencamp songs in their heads 24/7 ate it up.
That’s really unfortunate, I was hoping for at least some craziness at the convention. I didn’t think that it would be brokered, but I was hoping for a clash of totally bonkers Trump/Cruz/Kasich supporters in front of the cameras.
With Trump in charge you should get all the craziness you need.
.
Would love to be fly on the wall when Reince signs over the title to the Republican Party and hands Trump the keys. Of course with Trump, he might turn that ceremony into a TV spectacle, anyway. Why miss another chance for self promotion and the gratification of his ego?
It seems certain that the Republican convention will feature an elaborately produced video tribute to their nominee and his promise of a better future for America.
It will be fascinating viewing for those with strong stomachs.
Likewise the Democratic convention. Best to watch it on an empty stomach. Very best to not watch it at all.
So, now can we start having a conversation about a Clinton/Sanders ticket?
I’m actually more interested in which GOP politician is going to take one for the team and be Drumpf’s VP.
How about a conversation that is less of a waste of time than a Clinton-Sanders ticket? Likely there were Obama-Clinton ticket discussions in ’08, but have no idea why anyone would have participated in those.
If people are so intent on keeping Trump out of the WH, a dual ticket has to be on the table. There’s more the two of them share than separates them; he could cover her ‘judgment’ issues; he could fight inside the walls of the WH for his revolution; he could draw back in all his supporters who say they won’t vote for her; he could push his stronger climate change policies.
It may seem far fetched but it also points to how far are you willing to go to keep Trump out of the WH? Adding Sanders to the ticket only boosts her chances.
Dem partisans are currently only intent on getting HRC to the WH and continuing their forty year assault on progressive liberals. Given HRC’s affiliation with Kissinger, McCain, etc., she has long assumed that the left has no where else to go and that non-extreme Republicans are the key to her victory.
The record of the 111th Congress was part of the “assault on progressive liberals.”
Who knew?
Looked at it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Major_legislation.
A fine Republican record with all sorts of goodies for business like the Insurance companies and big law firms.
Yeah, expanding Medicaid to tens of millions of additional Americans was super bad for low-income Americans and super great for the private health insurance industry.
HOT TAKE!
Tell that to my daughter in Alabama.
I wasn’t aware that Obama was governor of Alabama.
Governors should never have had a choice. Medicare for All, as a federal program.
Eggsactly. The kludge in action.
Holy moly, this claim is poorly informed. The ACA as originally passed into law essentially required all States to fully expand their Medicaid eligibilities. It is the Supreme Court, specifically Chief Justice Roberts, who blocked that portion of the Law, claiming it was unconstitutionally coercive.
So it appears you’ve been blaming the President and Congress for your daughter’s lack of health insurance, without being aware that Medicaid was actually denied to her by John Roberts and the government of Alabama. No wonder we’ve been speaking past each other sometimes.
Er, SC has never claimed that Medicare was optional for the states. It is a FEDERAL entitlement, paid by the FEDERAL government, not a block grant to the state, though they sure would like that hostage.
For the purposes of the ACA discussion here, you’re confusing Medicare with Medicaid. The latter was the program which was massively expanded under Obamacare.
Keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, but some States refused to particicipate in their implementations at first, despite the fact that Federal funds covered almost all the costs of the programs. Arizona was the last to accept implementation of both of the programs in 1982.
Ideology, it’s a helluva drug.
So better nothing than the ACA!
Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary Clinton is just too dangerous.
No, better the right thing than a dusted off Heritage Foundation plan implemented by Rmoney.
Exactly.
Screw the people who are still alive because of the ACA.
Unicorns and Rainbows, or Bust!
#Trump/Arpaio 2016
You really don’t do nuance or shades of gray do you? I’ve noticed many of your posts employ the “all or nothing” approach.
The condescension appears optional.
I’ve offered many criticisms of policies passed and foreign and military policies executed by elected leaders from the Democratic Party. I’ve also repeated that I would offer more, save the fact that the positions of critique are extremely well filled here. I have found some of those critiques poorly measured rhetorically and sometimes supported by mistakes in fact.
Critiques like these have been frequently filed by some in the general group of Sanders supporters, and they were unsuccessful in pulling enough Clinton supporters over to give Bernie the nomination. That has been unsurprising to me; attacking voters rhetorically by rudely claiming they are wrong and enablers of corruption and immorality rarely works. Persuasion conversations need to be more nuanced and reality-based.
There’s a little bit of projection going on when a person who is extremely unsparing in their across-the-board condemnations of President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party in whole, condemnations so complete that the issuer appears to be fine with the prospect of a President Trump, is complaining about all or nothing statements.
We could try this, as a helpful reference point for our discussion: name a Congress in the last 50 years with a better record of liberal/progressive accomplishments.
When the Democrats are given full control, the government policies are demonstrably better than those with shared governing responsibilities with the Republicans, and much better than those governments under full GOP control.
That’s the history in recent decades, a very consistent history.
Can we also include the amount of regressive and punitive accomplishments as well? Which, coming from a Democratically controlled government, should be a registered as a huge failure as it betrays everything they supposedly stand for. When the GOP does it, the effects may be the same, but the reaction to it is not.
I also notice many times the “scoring” of such things do a very poor job of including the impact of these accomplishments over the long term.
Well, if we could talk specifically about the “regressive and punitive accomplishments” of the 103rd and 111th Congresses, the only times the voters have given Democrats the Executive along with Legislative majorities since 1980, then we could have a discussion about those claims.
A fair treatment would also talk about the things those Congresses did along with their Presidents which were undeniable progressive achievements. We’ll see if our exchange can include that.
That’s talking out of only one side of your hat. Look to the progressives that say they won’t vote at all if Clinton is the nominee, or will only vote down ballot. Sanders has already pushed her left and that’s where she sits, if he were to join up, she’d gain the outsider vote as well as reconsideration by Trump haters with no where else to go.
The benefit to down ballot would be big. Sure this is a fool’s errand, but Trump isn’t a Romney candidate, he can’t be underestimated and the damage to the climate alone of taking a chance on a Trump candidacy translates into extreme considerations by Clinton.
Do you really think Clinton will do anything for the environment? With Koch industries as one of her campaign donors?
Smoke and mirrors. That’s all the Clintons offer.
Sanders will never be VP under Clinton.
I was hoping he could get some key cabinet position, but at the rate things are going this is also a non-starter.
It is a pointless discussion.
True. But it’s also true that if the moon were made of green cheese it could feed the world for centuries.
Why bother? It’s as unlikely as a Sanders/Clinton ticket.
Such a ticket would indicate that Sanders either sold out or was always a fraud. I’d still vote for Trump. In fact, his betrayal would make me an enthusiastic supporter of the whole (R) ticket.
We gotta burn this fucking country to the ground in order to save it.
Trump/Arpaio 2016
Except for a handful of nutty and violent self-styled radicals (technically they were anarchists as that word is superficially and ahistorically understood) from way back when, the only organization or group that ever advocated that were those in the upper ranks to the Pentagon. So, you look like an ass in applying it to the lefties you seek to denigrate.
Is that right?
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/5/4/121442/5640#62
At this rate we just need to burn this fucking country to the ground.
Saving it is optional.
And the folks pitching that nonsense remain the same as they were fifty years ago. The Guardian — BAE chairman to peace activists: ‘weapons sales encourage peace’
http://assets.amuniversal.com/6d78d5f0d8e901334e5c005056a9545d
img tags don’t seem to work
Ah! Here it is!
That is why a Clinton/Sanders ticket has always been a non starter. Age is an issue as it for trump who will need a younger VP too.
No. Better to keep Bernie in the senate. He could wield some real power if the senate flips.
The VP needs to be younger than her, preferably by at least a decade.
HuffPo —Plan C: Third-Party Run A Daunting Task For GOP Establishment. And those people call Bernie supporters unrealistic or delusional.
they dont need to win, just deny a majority and Paul Ryan gets to pick.
Ah, but who would he pick?
I was assuming the 3rd party candidate.
uh uh uh
17 in the Clown Car and it’s down to Trump.
wow.
Trump did defeat what was called the most impressive field of GOP candidates ever. That’s what the pundits were saying, but the voters weren’t far behind.
Oct 2015:
Wow.
Impressive only in number.
Yeah, plenty of people mistake quantity for quality.